H7837J 
1908  ' 


JUVENILE  COURTS 


STANLEY  K.  HORNBECK 


COMPARATIVE  LEGISLATION  BULLETIN— No  15— AUGUST,  1908 

Prepared  with  the  co-operation  of  the  Political  Science 

Department  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin 


WISCONSIN  LIBKABY  COMMISSION 

LEGISLATIVE  REFERENCE  DEP'T 

MADISON  Wis 

1908 


CONTENTS 


Page 

REFERENCES 3 

PRINCIPLES 5 

HISTORY 6 

Evolution  of  Juvenile  Court  Principles  in  Legisla- 
tion    6 

Development  in  the  United  States 8 

LEGISLATION 12 

Foreign 12 

United  States 19 

Analysis  of  Statutes 19 

Laws  by  States 24 

JUDICIAL  DECISIONS  (UNITED  STATES) 30 

Constitutionality  of  Statutes 30 

Decisions  which  Affect  Various  Principles  Em- 
bodied in  Juvenile  Court  Legislation  or  Admin- 
istration    34 

ESSENTIALS  OF  A  GOOD  LAW. .  38 


£  REFERENCES 

-5-  

BAERNREITHER,  J.  M.  Jugendfursorge  und  Strafrecht  in  den 
Vereinigten  Staaten  von  Amerika.  Leipzig,  1905. 

BATES,  HELEN  PAGE.  Digest  of  statutes  relating  to  juvenile 
courts  and  probation  systems.  Charities,  1905,  vol.  13,  p. 
329-39. 

A  digest  with  three  tables  of  state  laws,  to  1905,  on  probation,  ju- 
venile courts,  and  provisions  for  dependent,  neglected  and  wayward 
children. 

Report    of   the    Probation   Commission  of  State  of 


New  York.     Albany,  1906. 

A  comprehensive  study  of  the  probation  laws  and  systems  as  ex 
isting  and  practiced  in  various  states  and  cities,  with  a  recom 
mended  bill,  and  with  a  collection  of  the  legislation  of  the  variou 
states,  up  to  1905.  Also  contains  a  very  complete  bibliography  o 
juvenile  court  literature,  p.  291-300. 

BERENGER,  SEN.,  and  JULHIET,  Ed.  Les  tribunaux  speciaux 
pour  enfants  aux  Etats  Unis,  en  France,  Angleterre,  et 
Allemagne.  Administration  de  la  Revue  1'  Enfant,  Paris, 
1906. 

CHARITIES.  A  weeky  review  of  local  and  general  philan- 
thropy, 1898-19—.  New  York. 

FOLKS,  H.  The  care  of  destitute,  neglected  and  dependent 
children.  New  York,  1902. 

HAHN,  E.  Die  Strafrechtsreform  und  die  jugendlichen  Ver- 
brecher.  Jahrbuch  der  Gehestiftung,  9-10,  Dresden,  1904. 

HURD,  H.  B.  Juvenile  court  law,  Charities,  vol.  13,  1905,  p. 
327-8. 

HURLEY,  T.  D.  History  of  the  Illinois  Juvenile  Court.  Juve- 
nile Court  Record,  May,  1907. 

INTERNATIONAL  PRISON  COMMISSION.  ^Reports  prepared  by 
S.  J.  Barrows,  Washington,  1904. 

THE  JUVENILE  COURT  RECORD.  Published  monthly,  79  Dear- 
born St.,  Chicago  1900,-19— . 


4  JUVENILE  COURTS 

KUN,  BELA,  and  LADAY,  ETIENNE.  La  Lutte  contra  la  Crim- 
inalite  des  Mineurs  en  Hongrie.  Budapest,  1905. 

Legislation  in  Regard  to  Children.  Report  of  Conference  at 
London,  1906.  Published  by  P.  S.  King  &  Son,  West- 
minster, 1906. 

LINDSEY,  JUDGE  B.  B.  The  Juvenile  Court  Laws  of  the  State 
of  Colorado.  Denver,  1905. 

An  explanation  of  the  purpose  of  the  laws  as  in  force  and  as  pro- 
posed. 

MORRISON,  W.  D.     Juvenile  Offenders.     New  York,  1897. 
The  problem  of  the  children  and  how  the  state  of  Colorado 

cares  for  them.     Report  of  the   juvenile  court  of  Denver. 

Denver,  1904. 

:See  especially  ch.  II,  The  Law  and  the  Court;  and  ch.  Ill,  Ad- 
ministrative Work. 

RUSSELL,  C.  E.  B.,  and  RIGBY,  L.  M.  (The)  Making  of  the 
Criminal.  London,  1906. 

Statutes  of  every  State  in  the  United  States  concerning  de- 
pendent, neglected,  and  delinquent  children.  Committee 
of  New  Century  Club,  Philadelphia,  1900. 

STEPHENS,  G.  A.  The  Juvenile  Court  System  of  Kansas. 
Topeka,  1906.^ 

UNITED  STATES  HOUSE  OP  REPRESENTATIVES.  Children's 
Courts  in  the  United  States.  58th  •  Cong.  2nd  Sess. 
House  of  Representatives,  doc.  no.  701.  Washington,  1904. 

WINES,  DR.  E.  C.  The  state  of  Prisons  and  Child-saving  In- 
stitutions. Cambridge,  1886. 


PRINCIPLES 


A  number  of  fundamental  principles  underlie  juve- 
nile court  legislation  and  the  decisions  of  the  courts 
upon  which  juvenile  court  and  probation  systems  now 
rest :  ( 1 )  Children  should  not  be  considered  as  crimi- 
nals but  as  victims  of  circumstance.  Distinction  must 
be  made  between  neglected,  dependent,  and  wayward 
children  and  delinquents  and  incorrigibles.  (2)  Chil- 
dren should  not  bfe  thrown  into  association  before,  dur- 
ing, or  after  trial,  with  criminals  or  adults  under  ac- 
cusation. (3)  All  the  resources  of  the  community 
should  be  used  by  the  court  to  promote  the  welfare  of 
the  child  and  to  protect  him.  (4)  Children  should  be 
tried  by  special  courts  in  special  rooms  with  the  least 
possible  publicity  or  display  of  legal  machinery,  and 
the  whole  process  dissociated  from  criminal  procedure. 
The  judges  should,  as  far  as  possible,  be  "child  ex- 
perts." (5)  Probation  officers,  competent,  in  adequate 
number,  and  paid,  should  be  at  the  disposal  of  the 
court.  (6)  Parents,  guardians,  etc.,  are  in  many  cases 
to  be  held  responsible  for  the  offense  of  the  child. 


1  See  Lindsey :    Juvenile  Court  Laws  of  Colorado. 
Berenger:    op.  cit.,  p.  1-60. 
Hahn:    op.ctt. 

Barrows;    In  International   Prison  Commission   Report.   1904.   p. 
XI  ff. 


HISTORY 

Evolution  of  Juvenile  Court  Principles  in  Legis- 
lation 

The  juvenile  court,  under  that  name,  is  of  recent 
growth,  but  the  principles  which  underlie  it  are  to  be 
found  far  back  in  English  Law  in  the  right  and  duty 
of  the  state  as  parens  patriae — .x  Turning  to  modern 
legislation  we  find  in  the  law  of  1840  (3  and  4  Vic. 
c.  90),  "For  the  Care  and  Education  of  Infants  who 
may  be  convicted  of  Felony,"  provision  that  the  High 
Court  of  Chancery  may,  upon  application,  place  any 
persons  under  21  years  of  age  who  may  be  convicted 
of  felony  in  care  of  persons  or  associations  that 
agree  to  teach  and  train  them  during  minority.  Laws, 
1866  (29  and  30  Vic.  c.  118)  and  1894  (57  and  58  Vic. 
c.  33  provide  that  morally  imperiled  children  may 
be  sent  by  the  court  to  certified  industrial  schools,  or 
lodged  at  home  or  with  a  respectable  person  and  there 
be  trained,  clothed,  and  fed.  The  Law  of  1847  (10 
and  11  Vic.  c.  82)  provides  for  summary  conviction 
of  children  not  over  fourteen,  and  allows  the  justices 
to  excuse  convicted  offenders  from  punishment  at  their 
discretion. 

New  South  Wales  in  1857  (20  Vic.  no.  19)  and  1864 


1  Compare  Blackstone  III,  §426-428. 


JUVENILE  COURTS  7 

(27  Vic.  no.  16)  passed  laws  for  state  protection  of 
destitute  children  up  to  the  age  of  nineteen,  with  con- 
tribution by  the  parents.  The  English  "Industrial 
Schools  Act,"  of  1866,  (29  and  30  Vic.  c.  118),  con- 
tains several  of  the  principles,  especially  the  definition 
of  neglected  and  dependent  children  (sec.  14),  and 
provisions  for  the  relation  between  parent  and  court, 
which  are  prominent  in  almost  every  modern  Juvenile 
Court  Act.  The  English  "Summary  Jurisdiction  Act" 
of  1870  (42  and  43  Vic.  c.  49),  and  its  amending  Act, 
1899  (02  and  63  Vic.  c.  22),  provide  for  summary 
jurisdiction  when  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  is  waived 
by  the  parent  or  the  juvenile  offender  (age  12  to  16). 1 

The  principle  of  probation  is  recognized  in  the  "Pro- 
bation Act"  of  Queensland,  1886  (50  Vic.  no.  14). 
The  English  "Probation  of  First  Offender's  Act"  of 
1887  (50  and  51  Vic.  c.  25)  gives  the  court  the  power 
to  release  upon  probation  instead  of  sentencing  to 
punishment. 

In  1890  New  Zealand  adopted  a  "Children's  Protec- 
tion Act"  (1890  no.  21),  whereby  punishment  is  pre- 
scribed for  ill  treatment,  neglect,  abandonment,  or  ex- 
posure of  children ;  and  restrictions  are  placed  on  em- 
ployment of  children,  the  court  in  both  cases  being 
given  discretionary  powers  and  being  allowed  to  place 
the  child  in  a  suitable  home  or  institution,  and  to  com- 
pel the  parents  to  contribute  to  the  support ;  while  pro- 
vision is  also  made  for  appeal  from  decisions  of  the 
court.  In  1896  Queensland  passed  a  "Children's  Pro- 

1  Compare  also  New  Zealand  Act,  1882,  no.  15. 


8  JUVENILE  COURTS 

tection  Act"  (60  Vic.  26)  similar  to  the  New  Zealand 
Act.  In  1899  an  English  Act  (62  and  63  Vic.  c.  22) 
gave  summary  jurisdiction  over  "all  offenses  of  young 
persons  other  than  homicide." 

In  1901  the  English  "Youthful  Offender's  Act"  (64 
Vic. — I  Ed.  VII,  c.  20)  removed  disqualifications  at- 
taching to  conviction  of  felony  of  a  child  or  young 
person;  emphasized  parent  liability;  and  gave  the 
court  the  power  to  remand  or  commit,  pending  trial, 
to  some  place  other  than  a  prison.  In  1902  New 
South  Wales  passed  an  act  (1902,  no.  47)  for  "Pro- 
tection of  Children."  In  1906  Victoria  passed  a 
"Children's  Court  Act"  (1906,  no.  2058)  which  is  a 
model  of  completeness.  New  legislation  is  at  present 
pending  in  England.  (Cf.  infra,  p.  14). 

Development  in  the  United  States 

The  most  rapid,  tangible,  and  systematic  develop- 
ment of  the  principles  has  been  in  the  United  States. 
In  1863  Massachusetts  passed  a  law  separating  chil- 
dren in  court  from  adults  charged  with  offense.  In 
1877  New  York  passed  a  similar  and  more  concise 
law,  which  provides  that  no  child  under  sixteen  "shall 
be  placed  in  any  prison  or  place  of  confinement  .  .  . 
or  in  any  vehicle  in  company  with  adults  charged  or 
convicted  with  crime,  except  in  the  presence  of  proper 
officers."  Michigan,  in  1873,  established  a  State  Agency 
for  the  Care  of  Juvenile  Offenders,  which  has  per- 
formed functions  similar  to  those  of  probation  officers. 
Massachusetts  passed  Probation  Laws  in  1878  and 
1880.  In  1891  Massachusetts  summarized  a  number 


JUVENILE  COURTS  9 

of  statutory  provisions  concerning  the  treatment  of 
children,  which  had  been  enacted  in  her  previous  legis- 
lation, (May  28,  1891,  c.  356).  New  York,  in  1892, 
added  a  new  section  to  the  Penal  Code  allowing  sepa- 
rate trial,  special  docket,  and  separate  record  for  cases 
of  children  under  sixteen.  It  has  been  affirmed  that 
the  basis  of  the  Juvenile  Court  Law  is  the  Board  of 
Guardians  Law,  passed  by  the  Indiana  Legislature, 
March  9,  1891,  (c.  151)  and  amend.  March  3,  1893, 
(c.  122.) 

The  Colorado  School  Law,  April  12,  1899,  c.  136, 
provided  special  treatment  for  "juvenile  disorderly 
persons,"  and  contained  many  of  the  principles  which 
have  been  embodied  in  subsequent  juvenile  court  laws. 
The  law  which  really  created  the  juvenile  court  was 
that  passed  by  the  Illinois  Legislature,1  April  21,  1899, 
p.  131.  Its  provisions  have  constituted  the  frame  work 
of  many  of  the  laws  passed  in  other  states. 

Since  1899,  the  growth  and  development  of  the 
juvenile  court  system  has  been  rapid  and  extensive. 
Many  states  had  previously  passed  probation  laws, 
and  it  is  noticeable  that  the  probation  system  has 
usually  preceded  the  juvenile  court.2  In  1899,  Michi- 
gan and  Rhode  Island  passed  "Juvenile  Probation" 
laws.  In  1901,  Illinois,  Kansas,  Michigan,  Missouri, 
and  Wisconsin  passed  juvenile  court  or  juvenile  pro- 
bation laws,  or  both.  In  1902,  Ohio  and  New  York 
passed  laws  concerning  children's  courts.  In  1903, 

1  Cf . :    History  of  the  Illinois  Juvenile  Court  Law,  T.  D.  Hurley,  Juve- 
nile Court  Record,  May,  1907.  u.  6  ff . 
*Cf:l Statutes,  compiled  [by  Nt \v  Century  Club,  Philadelphia,  18CO. 


10  JUVENILE  COURTS 

no  less  than  nine  states  legislated  on  these  subjects. 
In  that  year  Colorado  passed  the  original  "Adult  De- 
linquency" Law.  In  1904,  five  states;  and  in  1905, 
no  less  than  twenty,  legislated  on  these  three  subjects, 
— in  most  cases  on  all  three.  In  1906,  four  states 
enacted  new,  or  revised  old,  statutes  affecting  juvenile 
courts.  In  1907,  no  less  than  eighteen  states,  enacted 
new  statutes  or  added  to  or  revised  old  statutes.  By 
the  end  of  1907,  thirty-two  states  and  the  District  of 
Columbia  had  probation  laws,  and  twenty-seven  and 
the  District  of  Columbia  had  juvenile  court  laws. 
Few  states  have  been  satisfied  with  their  original  laws. 
Some  changes  have  been  necessary  on  account  of  de- 
cisions of  the  courts ;  some  have  been  made  for  the 
purpose  of  simplicity ;  but  most  of  them  represent  ex- 
tensions which  have  been  found  practicable  as  the 
work  of  the  court  has  expanded  and  its  value  has  been 
appreciated.  The  Alabama,  Colorado,  District  of 
Columbia,  Illinois,  Iowa,  Michigan,  Massachusetts, 
Oregon,  and  Utah  laws  furnish  an  especially  interest- 
ing field  for  study.  The  Michigan  law  of  1907  is  very 
carefully  drawn.  The  Colorado  law  of  1907  is  repre- 
sentative of  the  most  advanced  juvenile  court  legisla- 
tion. The  latest,  and  a  very  complete,  law  is  that 
passed  in  Ohio  in  April,  1908. 

After  the  legislative  development,  and  largely  in- 
fluencing it,  the  detailed  study  of  the  juvenile  court 
system  is  to  be  sought  in  the  development  of  city 
courts  under  the  provisions  of  the  state  statutes.  Es- 
pecially interesting  are  those  of  Boston,  Buffalo,  Chi- 


JUVENILE  COURTS  11 

cago,  Denver,  Indianapolis,  Milwaukee,  Minneapolis, 
New  York,  Rochester,  and  San  Francisco. 

The  scientific  development  of  the  system  in  the 
United  States  has  caused  wide  study,  both  interstate 
and  by  commissions  from  abroad,  especially  from  Eng- 
land, France,  Germany,  and  Sweden.  The  Howard 
Association  of  London,  M.  Ed.  Julhiet  from  France, 
Dr.  J.  M.  Baernreither  from  Germany,  and  Judge 
Harald  Salomon  from  Sweden  have  within  the  last 
four  years  made  special  studies  of  the  American  Sys- 
tem with  a  view  to  bettering  Juvenile  Legislation. 
Their  countries  and  others  are  passing  laws  which  em- 
body in  concrete  form  many  of  the  features  which 
characterize  the  American  Juvenile  Court. 


12  JUVENILE  COURTS 


LEGISLATION 


Foreign  Countries 

England.1  The  English  tribunals  are  well  prepared 
to  deal  with  children  under  twelve,  and  with  youthful 
offenders  under  sixteen,  because  of  the  wide  discre- 
tionary powers  which  the  English  criminal  law,  as  re- 
formed during  the  nineteenth  century,  confers  upon 
judges  and  magistrates.2  Control  of  the  court  over 
persons  as  juveniles  ceases  at  the  age  of  sixteen.3  The 
English  statutes  provide  for  summary  judgment  where 
jury  is  not  especially  demanded  by  parent  or  guardian 
or  by  the  "child  or  the  youthful  offender."4  Justices 
may  excuse  convicted  offender  from  punishment  where 
expedient.5  Dependent  or  neglected  children,  under 
fourteen,  found  begging,  .wandering,  homeless,  without 
proper  guardian  or  visible  means  of  support,  associat- 
ing with  criminals,  etc.,  may  be  brought  by  any  one 
before  two  justices  or  a  magistrate  and  may  be  sent 
to  a  certified  industrial  school  or  to  a  home  with  re- 
sponsible parents,  due  regard  being  given  to  the  re- 

1  For  account  of  English  Juvenile  Court,  see  Seeking1  and  Saving1, 
Oct.,  1906.    Cf.    Berenger,  op.  cit.  and  Russell  and  Rigby,  op.  ctt. 
'  W.  D.  Morrison,  op.  ctt..  p.  187. 

*  Statutes  1866  (29  and  30  Vic.  118)  and  1901  (64  Vic.  and  I  Ed.  VII,  c.  20). 
4 1879  (42  and  43  Vic.  c.  49.  sec.  10-11). 

•  1847  (10  and  11  Vic.  c.  82). 


JUVENILE  COURTS  13 

ligious  persuasion  of  the  child,  and  to  the  requests  and 
rights  of  the  parents.1  Parents  may  be  forced  to  con- 
tribute to  the  child's  maintenance.2 

Parents  or  guardian  may  be  summoned  as  contribut- 
ing to  the  offense  of  the  child,  or  for  neglect,  and  may 
be  tried  with  the  child  and  may  be  fined  and  ordered 
to  pay  security  for  its  good  behavior  and  may  be 
made  to  pay  toward  its  support  if  committed  to  a 
state  institution  or  home.  The  court  may  release  the 
offender  on  probation  or  for  good  conduct.3  A  sepa- 
rate register  for  convicted  youthful  offenders  shall  be 
kept.4  Appeal  may  be  made  to  the  High  Court  of 
Justice.5  The  child  committed  may  be  discharged  by 
the  Secretary  of  State.6  Most  of  these  principles  ap- 
ply to  Ireland  and  Scotland  as  well. 

England  is  establishing  short  Detention  Schools  on 
the  model  of  Truant  Schools.  The  English  system 
especially  emphasises  the  co-operation  of  the  courts 
with  the  educational  authorities  and  insists  upon  par- 
ental responsibility. 

The  juvenile  court  idea  has  progressed  rapidly  in 
the  English  cities.7  One  of  the  most  successful  has 
been  that  instituted  at  Birmingham,  April  13,  1905. 
The  working  of  this  court  resulted  in  the  issuing1  of  a 
government  circular  which  pointed  out  the  necessity 

1 1866  (29  and  30  Vic.  c.  118). 

» 1901  (64  Vic.  and  I  Ed.  VII,  c.  20,  sec.  4). 

1 1887  (50  and  51  Vic.  c.  25). 

*  1901  (64  Vic.  and  I  Ed.  VII,  c.  20,  sec.  13). 

•  1879  (42  and  43  Vic.  c.  49,  sec.  33). 

•  1866  (29  and  30  Vic.  c.  118,  sec.  14). 

*  It  is  claimed  that  Dublin  first  adopted  the  American  idea. 


14  JUVENILE  COURTS 

of  creating  such  courts  generally ;  and  many  cities  have 
followed  the  example  of  Birmingham.1 

The  London  County  Council  prepared  a  reform 
based  upon  the  principles  of  (1)  special  magistrates 
for  children,  (2)  special  courts,  (3)  special  detention 
homes,  (4)  nomination  of  probation  officers.2  Especi- 
ally noticeable  among  the  courts  of  the  United  King- 
dom are  those  of  Bury,  Bolton,  Manchester,  Birming- 
ham, Liverpool,  Nottingham,  Tunbridge- Wells,  Swan- 
sea, Stockton,  Hull,  Coventry,  York,  Southport,  Bev- 
erly, Scarborough,  Greenock,  Glasgow,  Dundee,  Dub- 
lin, and  Cork. 

In  Scotland,  special  arrangements  have  been  intro- 
duced for  the  treatment  of  juvenile  offenders  at  Glas- 
gow and  Greenock:  (1)  Trial  does  not  take  place  at 
ordinary  sittings  of  the  courts;  (2)  children  under 
sixteen  may  not  be  confined  in  ordinary  police  cells; 
(3)  probation  officers  are  in  daily  attendance. 

At  present  (July  1908)  a  "Bill  to  Consolidate  and 
Amend  Laws  Relating  to  Children  and  Young  Per- 
sons" is  pending  in  the  British  Parliament.  This  bill, 
introduced  Feb.  10,  1908,  provides  for  separation  of 
juvenile  offenders  from  adult  criminals ;  special  treat- 
ment; separate  courts;  separate  detention;  parent  re- 
sponsibility; entire  abolishing  of  imprisonment  for 
children,  and  of  penal  servitude  for  young  persons. 

The  bill  has  been  favorably  received  by  the  country. 

1  See  London  Times.  May  31. 1906. 

4 Compare  BSrenger.  op.  ctt.  p.  9,  note  2. 


JUVENILE  COURTS  15 

Canada.  The  Canadian  Statute,  R.  S.  1906,  c.  146, 
sec.  644,  (57-58  Vic.  c.  29)  provides  for  trial  of  per- 
sons under  sixteen  without  publicity,  apart,  and  at 
suitable  times,  and  for  separation  from  other  offen- 
ders. 

Manitoba.  Children's  Probation  Act,  R.  S.,  1902, 
c.  22,  (61  Vic.  1899,  c.  651)  provides  for  the  care 
of  neglected  children  by  a  salaried  superintendent ;  for 
their  examination  by  a  judge ;  for  placing  them  in  in- 
dustrial schools  and  schools  of  refuge  under  state 
authority  until  the  age  of  twenty-one;  for  payment  by 
municipalities  for  the  maintenance  of  certain  neglected 
children ;  for  separate  detention ;  for  attempt  to  secure 
foster  homes;  and  for  penalty  for  ill  treatment. 

Ontario.  The  Ontario  Children's  Protection  Act 
(R.  S.  Ontario  1897,  c.  259)  contains  extensive  pro- 
visions, which,  although  not  as  complete,  are  very  sug- 
gestive of  the  Victoria  act  of  1906;  cited  infra. 

New  Zealand.  The  Justices  of  the  Peace  Act,  1882, 
no.  15  (sec.  176),  provides  for  summary  trial  unless 
objected  to  by  parent  or  guardian,  of  children  under 
twelve,  and  (sec.  177),  with  consent,  of  young  persons 
(between  ages  of  twelve  and  sixteen).  The  ChilT 
dren's  Protection  Act,  1890,  no.  21,  provides  especf- 
ally  for  jurisdiction  over  all  ill-treated,  neglected,  de- 
pendent, or  exposed  children. 

Victoria.  Children's  Court  Act,  1906,  no.  2058, 
provides  a  "children's  court,"  to  have  jurisdiction 
over  children  under  seventeen ;  gives  wide  definition 
of  "parents"  and  "juvenile  offenders ;"  specifies  that 
children's  court  shall  be  held  at  every  place  within 


1C  JUVENILE  COURTS 

the  state,  where  a  court  of  petty  sessions  is  appointed 
to  be  held ;  that  the  governor  may  appoint,  for  any 
locality,  any  person  or  police  magistrate,  or  any  one 
or  more  justices  of  the  peace  within  the  place,  to 
exercise  jurisdiction  of  the  children's  court :  and  that 
the  governor  may  appoint  probation  officers  of  either 
sex  who  shall  be  subject  to  orders  of  the  court ;  speci- 
fies the  duties  of  probation  officer;  gives  the  juvenile 
court  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  all  charges  against 
children  for  felonies  and  misdemeanors,  and  allows 
it  to  hear  and  determine  all  information  for  offenses 
against  any  act  punishable  on  summary  conviction ; 
provides  for  exclusion  of  persons  unnecessary  to  trial, 
for  an  independent  register,  trial  within  twrenty-four 
hours  of  apprehension,  detention  where  possible  in 
one  of  the  "special  receiving  depots ;"  and  provides 
for  giving  bail.  The  parent  may  be  convicted  of  de- 
linquency and  may  be  compelled  to  contribute  toward 
support.  This  law  leaves  a  very  wide  discretion  with 
the  judge.  ''The  court  shall  be  guided  by  the  real 
justice  of  the  case  without  regard  to  legal  forms  and 
solemnities,  and  shall  direct  itself  by  the  best  evi- 
dence it  can  procure."  The  Governor  in  Council  is 
also  given  wide  powers  for  arranging  for  detention 
homes,  forms  of  procedure,  appointment  of  probation 
officer,  and  "prescribing  in  all  matters  necessary  for 
carrying  out  this  act."1 

France.     The  law  of  June  5,  1850,  provides  for  a 
separation   of    adults    from    juveniles   in    both    prison 

1  For  other  British  Colonies  see  #«;>'•«  under  "History." 


JUVENILE  COURTS  17 

and  court,1  and  for  education  (industrial)  of  all 
minors  imprisoned.  Paris  police  stations  have  sepa- 
rate waiting  rooms  and  there  is  a  separate  ''remand 
house"  for  temporary  detention  after  judgment.  Chil- 
dren may  not  ride  in  patrol  wagons  nor  be  escorted 
by  "gardes"  in  uniform.2 

The  Committee  of  the  Patronage  de  1'Enfance  pro- 
vides for  legal  defense  of  children  brought  before 
criminal  courts.3 

Laws,  April  19,  1898,  and  April  .12,  190(5,  leave  con- 
siderable discretionary  power  with  the  judges  in  deal- 
ing with  juvenile  cases.  The  probation  system  is 
being  tried  under  the  care  of  the  Patronage  de  1'  En- 
fan  c'e.  An  active  committee  is  working  for  the  per- 
fecting of  a  juvenile  court  system. 

Germany.  The  Law  of  July  2,  1900,  for  the  Fiir- 
sorgeerziehung  Minder  jahriger  (Guardianship  of 
Minors) — an  extension  of  the  Law  of  March  13, 
1878, — includes  a  court  of  guardianship  and  provides 
elaborately  for  probation.4  Any  one  may  bring  a 
neglected  or  offending  child  under  eighteen  to  this 
court  and  such  child  may  be  removed  entirely  from 
parental  care  and  into  a  state  institution,  or  into  a 
family,  under  care  of  a  probation  officer.  Even  of- 
fenders over  eighteen  may  be  sent  to  reformatories. 
The  relation  of  the  probation  officer  to  his  charge  is 
more  intimate  than  under  the  American  system,  for 


1  Russell  and  Rteby.  oi>.  cit.  p.  239. 

2  Russell  and  Rigrby,  on.  cit.  p.  171-2. 

3  Morrison,  vp.  cit.  p.  183. 

4  Russell  and  Righy ,  oj>.  cit.  p.  250-64. 


18  JUVENILE  COURTS 

the  Fiirsorger  has,  as  a  rule,  but  one  protege.  Such 
protection  may  continue  until  the  child  reaches  the 
age  of  twenty-one.  Detailed  reports  and  records  are 
required.1 

Holland.  Holland  has  special  statutes  providing 
for  substituting  state  guardianship  and  maintenance 
for  parental  control;  providing  for  reprimand  and 
conditional  condemnation  before  sentencing  delin- 
quents to  reformatory;  and  private  court  proceedings. 
The  age  of  juvenile  jurisdiction  has  been  raised  to 
eighteen.2 

Hungary.  Children  between  twelve  and  sixteen 
cannot  be  punished.  They  may  be  confined  in  houses 
of  correction  to  which  also  may  be  admitted  minors 
and  destitue  children  not  over  eighteen.  Special  care 
ceases  at  the  age  of  twenty.  Hungary  has  especially 
developed  its  system  of  homes  for  dependent  and 
neglected  children.3 

Sweden.  Children  under  fifteen  are  not  brought 
before  the  ordinary  courts,  but  before  a  commission 
whose  chairman  is  a  clergyman,  the  other  members 
being  school  teachers,  legal  men,  etc.  Certain  men  do 
work  approximating  that  of  the  probation  officer,  be- 
ing paid  for  each  special  case. 

1  Russell  and  Rigby,  op.  eft.  p.  141-142. 

2  ib..  279-286. 
slb.,  30. 


JUVENILE  COURTS  19 

United  States 

ANALYSIS   OF   STATUTES 

Purpose.  An  excellent  enunciation  of  the  princi- 
ples underlying  juvenile  court  legislation  appears  in 
the  following,  the  preamble  to  the  Louisiana  Law  of 
1906  (c.  82,  p.  134):  "Whereas  the  welfare  of  the 
State  demands  that  children  should  be  guarded  from 
association  and  contact  with  crime  and  criminals  and 
the  ordinary  process  of  the  criminal  law  does  not  pro- 
vide such  treatment  and  care  and  moral  encourage- 
ment as  are  essential  to  all  children  in  the  formative 
period  of  life,  but  endangers  the  whole  future  of  the 
child ;  and, 

"Whereas,  experience  has  shown  that  children  lack- 
ing proper  parental  care  or  guardianship,  are  led  into 
courses  of  life  which  may  render  them  liable  to  the 
pains  and  penalties  of  the  criminal  law  of  the  State, 
although  the  real  interests  of  such  child  or  children  re- 
quire that  they  be  not  incarcerated  in  penitentiaries 
and  jails  as  members  of  the  criminal  class,  but  be 
subjected  to  a  wise  care,  treatment,  and  control,  that 
their  evil  tendencies  may  be  checked  and  their  better 
instincts  may  be  strengthened;  and, 

"Whereas,  to  that  end  it  is  important  that  the 
powers  of  the  courts,  in  respect  to  the  care,  treatment 
and  control  over  dependent,  neglected,  delinquent,  and 
incorrigible  children  should  be  clearly  distinguished 
from  the  powers  exercised  in  the  administration  of 
the  criminal  law : 

"Be  it  enacted   . 


20  JUVENILE  COURTS 

Title.  Certain  statutes  have  been  declared  by  the 
courts  to  have  insufficient  and  inadequate  titles. 

For  »:ood  examples  of  Titles,  see  California,  11)05,  c.  610; 
Colorado,  11)07,  c.  140:  Michigan,  1!)07,  no.  325:  Oregon.  1907, 
c.  HI:  and  Utah.  1007,  c.  139. 

Definitions.  Most  statutes  provide  for  three  classes 
of  children — dependent,  neglected,  and  delinquent. 

Especially  "rood  definitions  of  these  are  found  in  Colorado, 
1903,  c.  85  and  1907,  c.  168:  Illinois,  1905.  May  16,  p.  152: 
Ohio,  1908,  Apr.  21,  sees.  5,  (i:  Oregon,  1907,  c.  H4,  sec.  1; 
I'tah,  1903,  c.  124,  sec.  2,  and  1907,  c.  139,  sec.  1H:  Arizona, 
1907,  c.  78,  sec.  1.  Louisiana,.  1906,  c.  82,  sec.  1,  mentions  also 
"incorrigibles".  Massachusetts,  1906.  c.  413,  sec.  1,  includes 
"\vay\vard  children."1. 

Courts.  Statutes  provide  that  jurisdiction  in  juve- 
nile cases  shall  lie  as  follows :  Arizona,  Iowa,  Min- 
nesota. Montana,  Nebraska — District  Courts ;  Illi- 
nois— Circuit  and  County  Courts  ;  Missouri — Circuit 
Court ;  Louisiana  and  Texas — District  and  County 
Courts  ;  Michigan — Circuit  and  Probate  Courts  ;  Kan- 
sas-and  Oregon — County  Court;  New  Jersey — Court 
of  Common  Pleas  ;  Idaho  and  Kansas — Probate  Court ; 
Wisconsin — Courts  of  Record  in  the  several  Coun- 
ties ;  Washington — Superior  Courts  in  Special  Ses- 
sion ;  New  York — Court  of  Special  Sessions ;  Pennsyl- 
vania— Quarter  Sessions  of  the  Peace ;  California- 
Superior  Court  or  Justices  Court  or  Police  Court  in 
Special  Sessions;  Ohio — Courts  of  Common  Pleas, 
Probate  Courts,  Insolvency  Courts  and  Superior 
Courts ;  New  Hampshire — Police  Court  and  Justices 
Courts ;  Alabama" — Chancery  Court  or  any  Court  hav- 
ing equal  powers  and  jurisdiction ;  Colorado,  District 

1  Cf.     Report  of  the  Probation  Commission  of  New  York.  p.  SIT). 


JCVEXILE  COURTS  21 

of  Columbia,  Indiana,  Maryland,  Utah — special  Juve- 
nile Courts. 

Aye  limits.  The  tendency  in  recent  legislation  has 
been  to  raise  the  limit  of  age  tinder  which  cases  shall 
be  subject,  in  the  first  instance,  to  juvenile  jurisdic- 
tion. Present  statutes  set  the  limit  as  follows :  Ala- 
bama— fourteen;  Arizona,  California,  Colorado,  Idaho, 
Kansas,  Louisiana,  Maryland,  Missouri,  Montana, 
New  Jersey,  New  York.  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island, 
Tennessee,  Texas.  Wisconsin — sixteen ;  District  of 
Columbia,  Michigan,  New  Hampshire,  Ohio,  Wash- 
ington— seventeen  ;  Indiana — males  sixteen,  females 
seventeen  ;  Illinois  and  Kentucky — males'  ^seventeen, 
females  eighteen;  Nebraska  (1907),  Oregon  (1907), 
and  Utah  (190?) — eighteen.  In  many  cases  the  juris- 
diction of  the  court  continues  to  twenty-one.1 

Trial.  Most  of  the  statutes  allow  summary  juris- 
diction except  where  the  pfea  "not  guilty"  or  demand 
for  trial  by  jury  is  made.-  In  general  the  effort  is 
made  to  have  a  juvenile  court  room  separate  from  any 
other  court  room.  In  several  cities  the  court  has  a 
separate  building  with  both  court  and  detention  facili- 
ties. \Vhere  a  special  room  is  impossible  most  stat- 
utes provide  that  the  juvenile  court  shall  not  be  held 
within  two  hours  of  the  holding  of  any  other  court 
in  the  same  room.  Sessions  shall  be  made  as  private 
as  possible,  only  persons  necessary  to  the  trial  or  to 
the  interests  of  the  child  being  admitted.  Some  courts 

'Seee.  >.'..  statutes  of  Colorado.   Illinois.  Ohio.  Kansas  and  Tennes- 
see. 

"See  ...  jr..  statutes  of  A  ri/ona.  !!»;>:.  c.  78,  sec. :?:  MirhUran.  1!W.  c.  314, 
see.  3:  Texas.  I'.tor.  c.  H.  sec-.  -2. 


22  JUVENILE  COURTS 

are  in  session  daily;  others,  one,  two,  or  more,  days 
per  week. 

Appeal.1  The  right  of  appeal  is  as  a  rule  expressly 
provided  for.  Some  statutes  however  omit  this  pro- 
vision. 

Probation  officers.  The  principle  of  probation  has 
been  even  more  widely  accepted  than  that  of  juvenile 
courts.  Probation  officers  are  appointed  as  follows : 
By  the  Court — in  Alabama,  Arizona,  District  of  Co- 
lumbia, Idaho,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Ken- 
tucky, Louisiana,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Michigan, 
Minnesota,  Missouri,  Nebraska,  New  Hampshire,  New 
Jersey,  New  York,  Ohio,  Oregon,  Pennsylvania,  Ten- 
nessee, Texas,  Utah,  Vermont,  Washington,  Wiscon- 
sin ;  by  the  Court,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  State 
Board  of  Charities — in  Colorado ;  by  a  probation  Com- 
mission, on  approval  of  the  court — in  California.  The 
Governor  in  Michigan  appoints  "County  Agents"  who 
act  under  the  supervision  of  the  State  Board  of  Cor- 
rections and  Charities.  The  State  Board  of  Correc- 
tions and  Charities  appoints  in  Rhode  Island.  Wis- 
consin has  a  special  procedure.2 

Provision  for  the  compensation  of  probation  officers 
is  made  in  the  statutes  of  Alabama,  Colorado.  District 
of  Columbia,  Idaho,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Kansas, 
Kentucky,  Massachusetts,  Michigan,  Minnesota,  Mis- 


Colorado,  1907.  e.  149.  sec.  15:  Indiana.  1907.  c.  13*5.  sec.  1: 
Utah.  1907,  c.  139.  sec.  7:   Wisconsin  Sess.  Laws.  1907.  sec.  573-4i.  sub.  sec. 
3.    Kansas,  1905,  c.  190.  sec.  12.    For  judicial  decisions,  see  p.  30ff . 
"See  Sess.  Laws,  1907.  Sec.  573-2,  sub-sec.  4. 


JUVENILE  COURTS  23 

souri,  New  Hampshire,  New  Jersey,  New  York,  Ohio, 
Utah,  Wisconsin.1 

Procedure.  The  rules  laid  down  in  different  stat- 
utes vary  widely.2  Generally,  however,  they  follow 
somewhat  the  line  indicated  in  the  Colorado  Statutes. 
In  some  cases  a  complaint  and  information  by  the 
prosecuting  attorney  is  required  for  cases  of  delin- 
quency.3 In  most  States  emphasis  is  laid  on  the  fact 
that  the  procedure  is  not  a  trial.4 

Disposition  of  Children.  In  cases  of  dependent  and 
neglected  children,  the  laws  allow  the  judge  to  use 
wide  discretion  in  leaving  children  with  parents  or 
guardians — one  or  the  other,  or  both,  being  on  proba- 
tion— or  placing  them  with  families  or  in  private  or 
public  institutions.5 

Parent  Contribution.  Most  states  allow  the  judge 
when  placing  the  child  in  an  institution  or  home,  to 
assess  the  parent  of  the  child  a  reasonable  sum  (usu- 
ally with  a  maximum  prescribed)  monthly,  for  its 
support.6 

Adult  Delinquency  oJ-  Responsibility.  Parents,  etc. 
whom  the  judge  considers  responsible  for  the  condi- 
tion or  action  of  the  child  may  be  fined  in  sums  rang- 
ing from  $100  to  $1,000,  or  imprisonment  from  six 


compare  Tables  in  Helen  Page  Rates'  Digest,  Charities.  1904-5. 
vol.  13.  p.  32J1-39. 

s  Compare  Michigan.  15107.  no.  125,  sees.  5-8:  and  Texas.  1!«07.  no.  45.  sees. 
4,  5.  9. 

'Compare  U.  S.  Statutes  (D.  C.)  1907.  e.  9SO.  sees.  12-23. 

4  Compare  Michigan,  1907.  c.  325,  sec.  2. 

•Compare  Michigan.  1907,  c.  325.  sec.  7:  Texas.  1907.  c.  45,  sec.  7:  Ohio. 
1908,  Apr.  24,  sees.  12-13. 

•Compare  Arizona.  H107.  c.  78.  sec.  5:  Kentucky.  190t>.  c.  (54,  sec.  9: 
Michigan,  1907.  no.  325.  sec.  !>:  Washington.  1907.  c.  110,  sec.  15. 


24  JUVENILE  COURTS 

months  to  one  year,  or  both.  The  following  states 
have  special  provisions :  Alabama,  Colorado,  District 
of  Columbia,  Idaho,  Illinois,  Kansas,  Kentucky,  Mas- 
sachusetts, Michigan,  Nevada,  Montana,  Nebraska,. 
New  Jersey,  New  York,  Ohio  and  Oregon.1 

Detention  Homes.  Many  states  have  authorized  or 
ordered  the  building  of  special  detention  homes  where 
children  may  be  kept  both  while  awaiting  and  after 
trial,  also  for  short  periods  of  confinement. 

Religious  Faith  and  Family  Care.  As  a  rule  there 
is  added  to  the  provisions  for  disposing  of  cases  of 
neglected  and  dependent  children  where  placed  in  pri- 
vate homes  or  institutions,  that  attention  be  given  to 
the  religion  of  the  parents,  or  of  the  child.2 

Educational  Clauses.  Some  states  especially  in- 
clude in  juvenile  -court  law  provisions  for  the  educa- 
tion of  the  child." 

LAWS    BY    STATES 

Fourteen  States  have  no  juvenile  court  or  proba- 
tion laws.  Of  these,  several  have  institutions  which 
approximate  juvenile  court  work.  Many  of  the  stat- 
utes of  others  have  been  cited  above.  It  will  be  suffi- 
cient here,  avoiding  repetition,  to  mention  certain 
features  of  various  statutes  and  to  quote  extensively 
from  the  statutes  of  one  or  two  states. 


1  Compare  Colorado.  1903.  c.  94.  sec.  1 :  and  1905.  c.  81 :  District  of  Co- 
lumbia, I).  S.  Stat.  1906.  c.  9(50.  sec.  24:  Illinois.  1905.  May  13.  p.  189:  In- 
diana. 1905.  c.  145.  and  1907.  c.  169:  Minnesota.  1907,  c.  92:  Michigan, 
1907,  no.  314:  Ohio.  1908.  April  24,  sees.  11,  14-19. 

2 Compare  Ari/ona.  1907.  c.  78.  sec.  10:  California.  1905,  c.  610.  sec.  20: 
Colorado.  1907.  c.  168.  sec.  8:  Iowa.  1904,  c.  11.  sec.  15. 

'Compare  Idaho.  1905.  Mar.  2.  p.  106.  sec.  9:  Illinois.  1907,  Apr.  19,  p.  69r 
sec.  8. 


JUVENILE  COURTS  25 

Alabama.  190?,  no.  :UO,  Mar.  12.  "Trial  shall  be 
so  conducted  as  to  disarm  the  child's  fears  and  win 
its  respect  and  confidence,  (sec.  15).  A  penalty  is 
provided  for  interfering  with  or  opposing  the  work  of 
the  probation  officer  or  making  false  statement  con- 
cerning that  which  he  has  the  right  to  know. 

Arizona.  190?.  c.  78,  is  a  brief,  clearly  written  stat- 
ute, without  cumbersome  phraseology,  and  establish- 
ing a  simple  system. 

California.  Good  laws,  as  amended,  1905,  c.  579 
and  c.  610. 

Colorado.  1907,  c.  149, 1  contains  a  complete  title — 
"An  act  establishing  juvenile  court  in  each  county, 
and  in  each  municipality  known  and  designated  as  a 
city  or  county,  within  this  state,  in  which  there  are . 
one  hundred  thousand  or  more  inhabitants,  and  to 
prescribe  the  jurisdiction,  powers,  rights,  proceedings 
and  practice  of  such  courts,  and  to  define  the  rights, 
powers,  duties,  and  qualifications  of  the  judges  and 
other  officers  connected  therewith,  and  to  provide  for 
the  maintenance  thereof.  .  .  ." 

The  Colorado  statutes,  collectively,  provide  that  the 
juvenile  court  shall  have  original  jurisdiction  in  all 
criminal  cases  in  which  the  disposition  of  any  child 
or  minor  or  other  person  under  the  acts  concerning 
dependent,  neglected,  or  delinquent  children  is  in  ques- 
tion ;  it  shall  be  a  court  of  record  with  the  powers 
and  manner  of  procedure  of  other  courts  of  record; 


1  "Judge  Lindsey's  ambition  to  create  a  juvenile  court  in  this  city 
[Denver],  which  will  be  the  model  for  the  world,  has  long  been  known, 
and  it  is  believed  that  his  opportunity  has  arrived."  Juvenile  Court 
Record.  May.  W>".  p.  4. 


26  JUVENILE  COURTS 

shall  sit  for  three  terms  per  year;  the  judge  shall  be 
elected  and  shall  have  a  salary  of  $4,000  per  annum, 
and  shall  receive  no  other  salary,  neither  shall  he  act 
as  attorney  or  counsellor  at  law;  the  judge  shall  ap- 
point all  officers  of  the  court  and  fix  their  salaries; 
there  shall  be  probation  officers  in  counties  of  more 
than  100,000,  not  more  than  three  of  whom  shall  be 
under  the  public  pay;  and  there  shall  be  as  many  as- 
sistants as  the  judge  and  county  commissioners  shall 
think  necessary;  the  chief  probation  officers  to  re- 
ceive $1,500  per  annum,  and  two  others  $1,200 ; 
appointments  made  by  the  judge  shall  be  approved 
by  the  State  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections; 
in  all  counties  with  a  population  exceeding  15,000 
there  shall  be  not  less  than  one  probation  officer, 
who  shall  receive  a  salary  fixed,  by  the  board  of 
county  commissioners ;  paid  probation  officers  are 
vested  with  the  powers  of  sheriff;  the  county  com- 
missioner shall  provide  the  sum  necessary  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  court  officers  and  the  detention 
home,  and  shall  provide  court  room  and  supplies ;  trial 
by  jury  may  be  demanded  by  the  parties  entitled  to 
it;  the  right  of  appeal  shall  be  the  same  as  in  civil 
cases ;  the  child  may  have  the  right  of  bond ;  no  child 
under  fourteen  shall  be  placed  in  jail;  and  counties 
of  the  first  class  shall  provide,  at  the  public  expense, 
a  detention  room  or  house,  separate  from  the  jail.1 
Connecticut  has  Probation  Officers  (1905,  c.  142). 

'For  the  Colorado  Laws  (except  1907  Law)  see  Lindsey:  Juvenile 
Court  Law  of  Colorado,  p.  18-59.  On  the  1907  law.  see  Charities.  1907, 
April  13.  p.  71-72. 


JUVENILE  COURTS  27 

District  of  Columbia.  U.  S.  Stat.  1885,  c.  58,  Act 
for  the  Protection  of  Children;  U.  S.  Stat.  1892,  c. 
250,  Act  to  Provide  for  the  Care  of  Dependent  Chil- 
dren in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  to  Create  a  Board 
of  Guardians;  and  U.  S.  Stat.  1901,  c.  847,  provide 
for  probation  officers,  adult  delinquency,  contribution 
by  the  parent,  and  suspended  sentence  and  bond.  U.  S. 
Stat.  1906,  c.  960,  creates  a  Juvenile  Court  in  and  for 
the  District  of  Columbia ;  provides  for  probation  offi- 
cers, prosecution  on  information  by  the  corporation 
counsel  or  his  assistant ;  and  is  especially  good  on  pro- 
cedure (sees.  17-23). 

Idaho.  A  feature  common  in  the  working  of  the 
system  in  several  states,  but  especially  provided  for 
by  statute  appears  in  Idaho,  1907,  Mar.  12,  p.  231, 
sec.  3,  providing  that  the  probate  judge  and  the  school 
superintendent  shall  work  in  conjunction. 

Illinois.  The  Illinois  statutes  contain  a  full  state- 
ment of  the  powers  of  the  judge,  procedure,  disposal 
of  the  child,  and  the  duties  of  the  probation  officers. 

(See  especially  1905,  p.  152,  p.  189,  and  1907,  p.  69,  p.  70.) 

Indiana.  A  complete  adult  delinquency  law,  1905, 
c.  145,  and  1907,  c.  169. 

Iowa.  The  Law  of  1907,  c.  7,  sec.  3,  provides  for 
the  levying  of  a  special  tax  for  the  support  of  a  de- 
tention home  and  probation  officers. 

Kentucky  and  Louisiana  passed  comprehensive  and 
well  worded  Juvenile  Court  Laws  in  1906. 

Kansas.  The  Law  of  1901,  c.  106,  combines  the 
action  of  the  Humane  Society  with  the  work  of  pro- 
bation officers. 


28  JUVENILE  COURTS 

Maine  has  a  Probation  Law. 

Maryland  has  Juvenile  Court  Laws  for  the  city  of 
Baltimore.  • 

Massachusetts.  Massachusetts'  legislation  forms 
an  epitome  of  the  development  of  juvenile  courts. 

Michigan.  The  law  of  1907,  no.  325,  is  especially 
well  worth  study.  It  was  carefully  drawn,  avoiding 
the  features  which  caused  the  1905  law  to  be  declared 
unconstitutional.1 

Minnesota  ajid  Missouri  have  good  laws  on  both 
Juvenile  Courts  and  Probation. 

Montana.  1907,  c.  92,  a  complete  law,  well  stated, 
contemplates  placing  children  in  state  homes. 

Nebraska.  The  1907  legislation  (c.  45  &  46)  is 
especially  good. 

XCK  Hamshire.  1907,  c.  125,  sec.  3 :  "It  shall  be 
unlawful  for  any  newspaper  to  publish  any  of  the 
proceedings  of  any  juvenile  court." 

AYw  Jersey  has  both  Probation  and  Juvenile  Court 
Laws. 

A>a?  York.  Has  good  laws  on  both  Probation  and 
Juvenile  Courts. 

See  legislation  recommended  by  the  New  York  Probation 
Commission  Report,  1905  (not  passed). 

Ohio.  1908,  Apr.  24,  contains  an  especially  wide 
and  complete  definition  of  delinquent,  and  of  depend- 
ent and  neglected  children.  A  carefully  drawn  law. 

Oklahoma  has  special  legislation  concerning  juve- 
nile offenders. 


1  ''This  statute  is  already  being  found  fault  with,  however,  as  provid- 
ing no  method  for  caring  for  any  child  between  the  age  of  seven  and 
twelve  having  pronounced  criminal  tendencies."  Judge  Konhert, 
quoted  in  Charities.  November  hi.  11K>7,  p.  1071. 


JUVENILE  COURTS  29 

Oregon.  190?,  c.  34.  Complete,  concise,  well  ar- 
ranged. 

Pennsylvania  has  both  Juvenile  Court  and  Proba- 
tion Laws. 

Rhode  Island  has  a  Juvenile  Probation  System. 

Tennessee  has  Juvenile  Courts  and  Juvenile  Proba- 
tion. 

Texas.  1907,  c.  44-45,  good  on  hearing,  procedure, 
and  disposal  of  the  child. 

Utah.  1907,  c.  139,  a  comprehensive  title;  good  on 
compensation,  power  and  extent  of  jurisdiction  of  the 
court  and  selection  of  the  judge;  provides  for  a  Juve- 
nile Court  Commission  consisting  of  the  Governor, 
Attorney  General  and  State  Superintendent  of  Public 
Instruction.  Contains  (sec.  5)  a  statement  of  alter- 
native decrees  and  judgments,  and  (sec.  11)  the  duties 
of  the  probation  officers.  Adds  to  the  Ohio  defini- 
tions. May  be  read  profitably  in  connection  with  the 
decision  of  the  Utah  Supreme  Court  in  1907,  Mill 
y.  Brown,  31  Utah  473  (see  infra,  p.  32). 

Vermont  has  county  Probation  Officers. 

Washington.  Washington  legislation  provides  also 
for  the  jurisdiction  of  the  judge  of  the  Juvenile  Court 
over  the  employment  of  child  labor  (1907,  c.  128). 

Wisconsin.  Wisconsin  Juvenile  Court  Laws  pro- 
vide a  special  method  for  the  appointment  and  em- 
ployment of  probation  officers.  (Sess.  Laws,  1907. 
Sec.  573-2,  Sub-sec.  4.)1 

'Compare  methods  suggested  by  the  New  York  Probation  Commis- 
sion Report,  1905.  Appendix  A.  p.  101-10t>. 


30  JUV  EXILE  COURTS 


JUDICIAL  DECISIONS 


Constitutionality  of  Statutes 

The  constitutionality  of  statutes  establishing  juve- 
nile courts  as  such,  has  been  brought  into  question  in 
the  following  cases: 

Mansfield's  Case.  In  Mansfield's  Case,  22  Pa.  Su- 
perior Court  224,  (1903)  the  Pennsylvania  Law  of 
1901,  c.  185,  (P.  L.  279)  establishing  juvenile  courts 
and  the  probation  system,  was  declared  unconstitu- 
tional. It  was  held  that  the  legislature  could  not 
legislate  the  judge  of  an  old  court  onto  the  bench  of 
a  new  court  which  it  was  creating;  that  the  title  of 
the  act  was  insufficient  to  allow  the  wide  interpreta- 
tion given  it,  that  the  act  was  special  legislation  inas- 
much as  it  classified  children  and  discriminated  be- 
tween classes ;  that  requiring  a  child  to  make  a  formal 
affidavit  in  order  to  secure  trial  by  jury  violates  the 
constitutional  guarantee  of  that  right.  The  legisla- 
ture of  Pennsylvania  subsequently  reenacted  the  stat- 
ute as  five  separate  Acts,  changing  some  parts  and 
leaving  to  the  Juvenile  Court  and  Probation  Act, 
1903,  c.  205,  (P.  L.  274),  such  provisions  only  as 
have  reference  to  the  care,  treatment,  and  control  of 
dependent, 'neglected,  incorrigible,  and  delinquent  chil- 


JUVENILE  COURTS  31 

dren  under  the  age  of  sixteen  years,  and  providing 
for  the  means  by  which  special  power  may  be  exer- 
cised.1 

Ex  parte  Loving.  In  ex  parte  Loving,  178  Mis- 
souri 194,  (Dec.  9,  1903)  the  Missouri  Law,  Mar.  23, 
1903,  p.  213,  was  held  constitutional.  It  was  held 
that  the  terms  "neglected"  and  "delinquent"  children 
do  not  refer  to  different  subjects,  but  only  to  differ- 
ent classes,  the  title  being  "children";  that  the  limita- 
tion of  the  application  of  the  law  to  counties  having 
150,000  or  more  population  does  not  make  it  a  special 
or  local  law ;  that  it  is  within  the  competence  of  the 
legislature  to  make  certain  provisions  for  densely 
populated  districts  which  it  cannot  for  rural  districts, 
and  to  make  special  provisions  for  children  whose 
surroundings  are  disadvantageous,  which  it  does  not 
make  for  those  under  other  conditions;  that  failure 
to  provide  for  separation  of  neglected  and  delinquent 
children  does  not  render  the  statute  unconstitutional; 
that  the  provisions  of  such  a  statute  render  void  such 
provisions  of  a  city  charter  as  conflict  with  them. 

Commonwealth  v.  Fisher.2  In  Commonwealth  v. 
Fisher,  213  Pa.  State  48,  5  A.  &  E.  Ann.  Cas.  92, 
(Oct.  9,  1905),  an  appeal  from  the  decisions  of  the 
Superior  Court  of  Pa.,  the  Pennsylvania  Statute,  J.903, 
c.  205,  (P.  L.  274),  was  declared  valid.  It  was  held 
that  the  title  of  the  act  is  sufficient  (not  containing 
more  than  one  subject)  ;  that  the  act  does  not  create 
a  new  court;  that  the  act  does  not  deprive  juveniles 


1  See  Commonwealth  v.  Fisher,  infra. 

2  See  Mansfield's  Case,  supra. 


32  JUVENILE  COURTS 

charged  with  crime,  of  their  constitutional  right  of 
trial  by  jury  as  the  proceeding  of  the  juvenile  court 
is  not  a  trial  for  offense  such  as  requires  a  jury  ;  that 
it  is  not  class  legislation,  all  children  under  sixteen 
being  included  in  its  operation;  that  the  purpose  of 
the  act  is  not  trial  nor  punishment,  but  to  prevent  trial 
and  to  prevent  the  necessity  for  punishment.1 

Hunt  v.  Wayne  Circuit  Judges.  In  Hunt  v.  Wayne 
Circuit  Judges,  142  Michigan  93,  7  A.  &  E.  Ann.  Cas. 
821,  (Dec.  4,  1905),  the  Michigan  Statute,  1905,  no. 
312,  was  declared  unconstitutional.  It  was  held  that 
the  act  conferred  powers  on  the  circuit  court  com- 
missioners of  certain  counties  beyond  their  constitu- 
tional rights  ;  that  it  failed  in  those  counties,  and  con- 
sequently throughout  the  whole  State,  because  it  failed 
to  establish  a  uniform  method.2 

Mill  v.  Brown.5  In  Mill  v.  Brown,  31  Utah  473, 
88  Pac.  Rep.  609,  (Jan.  17,  1907),  the  Utah  Supreme 
Court  declared  the  Utah  Statute,  1905,  c.  117,  estab- 
lishing the  juvenile  court  and  probation  system,  valid, 
with  the  exception  of  sec.  7.  It  was  held  that  sec. 
7,  providing  that  the  parent  of  a  child  adjudged  a  der 
linquent  may  be  brought  before  the  court,  and,  if 
found  guilty  of  contributing  to  the  delinquency,  be 
condemned  to  certain  penalties,  was  unconstitutional 


inion  in  this  case  contains  an  excellent  review  of  opinions  and 
cases  bearing  upon  the  principles  involved  in  the  juvenile  court  system. 
Compare  5  A.  &  E.  Ann.  Cas.  92  fl,  and  especially  note  on  p.  96. 

a  The  opinions  of  five  judges  of  the  circuit  court  auoted  in  this  case 
are  interesting.  On  pages  155  of  142  Mich.,  and  829  of  7  A.  &  E.  Ann. 
Cas.  appears  a  bibliography  of  cases.  See  also  7  A.  &  E.  Ann.  Cas.  p. 
830,  note. 

3  "The  clearest  ana  most  lucid  announcement  of  the  law  which  has 
ever  been  written  on  that  subject."  Juvenile  Court  Record.  May.  1907, 
p.  16. 


JUVENILE  COURTS  33 

as  denying  such  parent  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  as 
for  any  other  crime ;  but  that  the  statute  is  not  other- 
wise affected  by  the  invalidity  of  sec.  7,  which  was 
not  connected  with  its  principal  provisions;  that  the 
question  of  the  right  of  the  judge  to  hold  office  can- 
not be  considered,  although  the  constitutionality  of 
the  statute  on  which  his  acts  depend  may  be;  that  it 
is  within  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  create  juve- 
nile courts,  conferring  upon  them  jurisdiction  and 
powers  previously  exercised  by  the  District  Court, 
(Utah  Const.,  art.  8,  sec.  1)  ;  that  creating  juvenile 
courts  in  cities  of  the  first  and  second  class  is  not 
special  legislation;  that  the  statute  in  question  is  not 
an  amending  act  though  it  incidentally  affects  some 
older  laws;  that  the  creating  of  juvenile  courts  hav- 
ing for  object  the  surrounding  of  the  children  with 
proper  environment  is  not  criminal  law  and  violates 
no  constitutional  provisions  because  not  providing  for 
trial  by  jury,  for  arraignment  and  plea,  for  notice  to 
parents,  or  because  of  the  manner  of  the  trial,  or  be- 
cause of  the  child's  being  required  to  be  a  witness; 
that  even  though  the  express  provisions  of  the  statute 
do  not  require  the  court  in  removing  the  child  from 
the  custody  of  parents  and  placing  it  under  other 
custody,  to  find  in  addition  to  delinquency  of  the 
child,  parental  incompetency  or  neglect,  yet,  there,  be- 
ing no  provisions  to  the  contrary,  the  act  will  be  con- 
structed to  require  it  in  view  of  Utah  R.  S.  1898,  sec. 
82,  which  provides  that  the  parent  cannot  be  deprived 
of  the  custody  of  the  child  unless  he  is  adjudged  in- 
competent to  have  such  custody. 


34  JUVENILE  COURTS 

Decisions  which  affect  various  principles  em- 
bodied in  juvenile  court  legislation  or  ad- 
ministration 

The  power  of  the  legislature.  As  to  the  state 
guardianship  of  children  generally,  see  Whalen  v. 
Ohmstead,  (Conn.)  15  L.  R.  A.  593,  note,  "State 
Guardianship  of  Children." 

The  State  has  the  power  to  detain  and  educate 
minor  offenders.  Ex  parte  Nichols,  110  Cal.  651 ; 
Jarrard  v.  State,  116  Ind.  98. 

On  the  duty  of  the  state  to  protect  dependent  and 
unfortunate  infants :  McLean  Co.  v.  Humphreys,  104 
111.  378.  "The  duty  of  the  legislature  to  determine  by 
rules  and  definitions  the  class  or  classes  requiring  it 
and  to  impose  state  supervision,  is  no  longer  open  to 
question.1'  Hunt  v.  Wayne  Circuit  Judges.  For  bib- 
liography of  cases  on  this  point,  see  7  A.  &  E.  Ann. 
Cas.  829. 

On  the  constitutionality  of  the  statutes  providing 
for  commitment  of  wayward  children  to  institutions 
or  to  proper  guardianship  without  jury  trial,  see  5 
A.  &  E.  Ann.  Cas.  96,  note. 

The  employment  of  private  institutions  for  the  care 
of  the  child  is  an  appropriate  means  to  performing 
the  duties  of  the  state,  and  is,  therefore,  constitutional. 
See  Wis.  Industrial  School  v.  Clark  County,  103  Wis. 
651. 

The  statute  authorizing  the  commitment  to  the  State 
Industrial  School  of  children  who  for  want  of  proper 
parental  care  are  growing  up  in  mendicancy  and  crime, 
under  sixteen,  is  valid,  but  is  not  valid  as  to  children 


JUVENILE  COURTS  35 

over  that  age  who  have  not  been  duly  convicted  of 
crime.  Scott  v.  Flowers,  61  Neb.  620,  and  85  N.  W. 
857. 

The  court:  character  and  extent  of  its  jurisdiction. 
Chancery-power.  The  power  conferred  on  the  county 
court  by  this  act  is  of  the  same  character  as  the  juris- 
diction exercised  by  the  court  of  chancery  over  in- 
fants, having  its  foundation  in  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
crown  as  parens  patriae  to  protect  that  which  has  no 
lawful  protector.  In  re  Ferrier,  103  111.  367;  Dinson 
v.  Drosta,  Appellate  Court  of  Indiana,  Div.  no.  2, 
Jan.  1907 ;  80  N.  E.  Rep.  32.  Cf  Cent.  Dig.,  vol.  31, 
§  138. 

The  power  conferred  by  statute  on  Circuit  Courts 
to  appoint  guardians  is  merely  declaratory  of  the 
chancery  powers  which  they  already  possessed.  See 
Board  of  Guardians  v.  Shutter,  139  Ind.  268; 
also  People  v.  Mercein,  25  Wendell  64,  35  Am. 
Dec.  653;  Richards  v.  Collins,  45  N.  J.  Eq.  283,  14 
Am.  Rep.  726;  Industrial  School  v.  Clark  County, 
103  Wis.  651. 

All  courts  having  power  to  issue  writs  of  habeas 
corpus  to  hear  and  determine  cases  arising  under  them 
may  control  under  certain  circumstances  the  custody, 
education  and  management  of  minor  children.  Com- 
monwealth v.  Barney,  29  Leg.  Int.  317.  See  also  ex 
parte  Nicholl,  110  Cal.  651 ;  Roth  v.  House  of  Refuge, 
31  Md.  329;  ex  parte  Crouse,  4  Wharton  (Pa.)  9. 

Decrees  of  the  juvenile  court  are  not  for  punish- 
ment, but  for  reformation.  Ex  parte  Nicholl;  in  re 
Ferrier;  and  Mill  v.  Brown. 


36  JUVENILE  COURTS 

Jury  Trial.  "In  by  far  the  greater  number  of  cases 
which  have  passed  upon  this  question  it  has  been  held 
that  a  statute  which  authorizes  the  commitment,  with- 
out jury  trial  to  a  reformatory,  house  of  correction, 
or  refuge,  of  children  who  are  incorrigible  or  lack 
proper  parental  care,  is  constitutional."  See  5  A.  &  E. 
Ann.  Cas.  92,  p.  96. 

Appeal.  It  has  in  several  instances  been  decided 
that  in  the  absence  of  statutory  provisions,  there  is 
no  appeal  from  the  judgment  of  the  judge  of  the  juve- 
nile court.  Dinson  v.  Drosta,  Appellate  Court  Ind., 
Div.  no.  2,  Jan.  1907;  80  N.  E.  Rep.  32.  See  Elliot: 
Appellate  Procedure,  §  75. 

Legal  rights  of  the  parent.  In  some  cases  it  has 
been  held  that  the  parent  has  a  right  to  notice  of 
proceedings,  and  in  others  that  the  parent  has  no  such 
right.  See  Cincinnati  House  of  Refuge  v.  Ryan,  37 
Ohio  State  197;  in  re  Kelly,  152  Mass.  432;  In  re 
Wares,  161  Mass.  70. 

The  child  cannot  be  taken  from  the  parent  or 
guardian  unless  the  parent  or  guardian  is  shown  to 
be  an  unfit  person  to  have  the  custody  of  the  child, 
or  has  been  convicted  of  neglect.  Cf .  Milwaukee  In- 
dustrial School  v.  Supervisors,  40  Wis.  328;  People 
ex  rel  McEntee  v.  Lynch,  223  111.  346 ;  Mill  v.  Brown, 
31  Utah  473. 

Custody  of  the  parents  or.  guardian  will  not  pre- 
vail if  it  imperils  the  personal  safety,  morals,  or 
health  of  the  child,  and  the  court  will  scrutinize  the 
conditions  and  circumstances  in  determining  the  dis- 


JUVENILE  COURTS  37 

position  of  the  child.  Cf.  Richards  v.  Collins,  45 
N.  J.  Eq.  283. 

Custody  and  Disposition  of  the  Child.  See  Cin- 
cinnati House  of  Refuge  v.  Ryan,  37  Ohio  State, 
197 ;  Farnham  v.  Pierce,  141  Mass.  203 ;  In  re  Wares, 
161  Mass.  70;  In  re  Kelley,  152  Mass.  433;  In  re 
Ferrier,  103  111.  367 ;  27  Cent.  Dig.  "Infants,"  sees.  13, 
18,  19.  Cf.  supra;  "Powers  of  the  Legislature  and 
the  Court." 

Reformatories  etc.:  Legal  status  of,  and  character 
cf  commitment  to.  The  view  taken  in  the  majority 
of  cases  is  that  the  institutions  and  reformatories  to 
which  children  are  committed  are  not  prisons  or  peni- 
tentiaries, but  schools — "where  children  who  may 
be  exposed  by  conditions  of  misfortune,  or  who  may 
perversely  expose  themselves  to  immoral  surround- 
ings and  influences,  may  be  kept  under  reasonable  re- 
straint during  their  minority,  not  as  punishment  for 
crime,  but  for  their  moral  and  physical  well  being." 
5  A.  &  E.  Ann.  Cas.  96,  note.  Cf.  Olson  v.  Brown, 
50  Minn.  353 ;  McLean  County  v.  Humphreys,  104  111. 
378;  In  re  Ferrier,  103  111.  367;  Scott  v.  Flowers, 
61  Neb.  620. 

Habeas  Corpus:  Children  taken  from  the  custody 
of  the  parents,  etc.  See  ex  parte  Grouse,  4  Wharton 
9;  Farnham  v.  Pierce,  141  Mass.  203,  55  Am.  Rep. 
452,  note  p.  456;  ex  parte  Nicholl,  110  Cal.  651; 
People  ex  rel  McEntee  v.  Lynch,  223  111.  346. 


38  JUVENILE  COURTS 


ESSENTIALS  OF  A   GOOD  JUVENILE 
COURT  LAW1 


From  the  preceding  pages  it  will  be  seen  that  two- 
thirds  of  the  states  have  already  passed  special  juvenile 
court  or  probation  laws,  or  both,  and  with  few  ex- 
ceptions, laws  concerning  adult  delinquincy.  There 
exist  in  many  of  the  other  states  statutes  embody- 
ing some  of  the  underlying  principles  of  juvenile 
court  legislation.  Juvenile  court  laws  as  they  exist 
to-day  are  the  result  of  experiment,  and,  in  those 
states  which  lead  in  juvenile  court  legislation,  repre- 
sent constant  effort  to  profit  by  and  embody  the  results 
of  experience  in  new  and  improved  legislation.  It 
has  apparently  been  found  possible  in  some  states  to 
approximate  the  work  of  the  juvenile  court  without 
special  legislation,  but  as  a  rule  separate  laws  uniting 
the  features  essential  to  the  effective  application  of 
those  principles,  have  greatly  facilitated  the  work. 
Experience,  both  of  the  actual  working  and  of  the 
legality  of  juvenile  court  legislation  has  now  been 

1  See  Lindsey :  The  Juvenile  Court  Laws  of  Colorado,  especially  p.  8  ff . 
What  is  Necessary;  and  p.  59  ff,  A  Word  as  to  the  Preparation  of  Juve- 
nile Laws  for  Other  States. 

See  H.  B.  Hurd:  Minimum  Principles  Which  Should  be  Stood  for, 
Charities,  1905,  p.  325. 

See  recommendation  of  the  New  York  Probation  Commission.  Re- 
port, p.  93  ff.,  App.  A. 


JUVENILE  COURTS  39 

sufficient  to  make  it  possible  to  suggest  certain  fea- 
tures upon  which  emphasis  is  to  be  laid. 

In  general,  it  may  be  said  that  the  code  should 
not  be  hard  and  fast.  It  should  be  elastic.  "Where 
juvenile  court  law  covers  a  whole  state,  a  uniform 
system  should  be  adopted  for  practicability."  "Due 
regard  should  be  had  for  the  statutes  already  on  the 
books."  "The  institutions  and  methods  in  vogue  within 
the  state  in  dealing  with  children  and  the  relations  of 
parent  and  child,  parent  and  state,  and  state  and  child, 
should  be  carefully  studied  and  new  legislation 
adapted  to  local  conditions  and  resources." 

The  title  should  be  clear,  comprehensive,  and  suffi- 
cient. It  has  been  held  advisable  in  several  cases 
to  enact  laws  in  several  different  acts  in  order  to 
avoid  difficulties  with  title. 

The  definition  of  neglected,  dependent,  and  espe- 
cially of  delinquent,  children  should  be  made  broad, 
and  the  age  limit  for  juvenile  jurisdiction  should  be 
made  as  high  as  consistent  with  the  general  laws. 

Jurisdiction  should  be  given  to  courts  with  chan- 
cery power.1  It  is  not  necessary  that  new  courts  be 
established,  though  it  has  been  found  in  some  places 
the  most  satisfactory  method.  It  is  generally  agreed 
that  there  should  be  one  judge — rather  than  several 


1  "We  consider  it  a  step  backward  to  provide  for  a  special  court  lim- 
ited to  children's  cases  only,  unless  it  is  given  general  unlimited  crim- 
inal and  chancery  court  jurisdiction  in  order  that  it  may  successfully 
handle  all  cases  against  or  concerning  adults  where  a  child  is  involved." 
Lindsey.  in  International  Prison  Committee  report.  1904.  p.  64. 


40  JUVENILE  COURTS 

in  rotation — who  shall  be  (exclusively,  if  possible) 
a  juvenile  court  judge.1 

Provision  should  be  made  for  separate  room,  if 
possible,  in  a  special  building  devoted  to  the  needs  of 
the  juvenile  court.  There  should  be  a  waiting  room 
so  that  cases  may  be  dealt  with  one  at  a  time. 

The  trial  should  be  private,  informal,  and  con- 
ducted on  the  principle  of  "the  saving,  not  the  punish- 
ment or  restraint  of  the  child."  Proceedings  etc. 
must  be  left  largely  to  be  determined  by  local  needs 
and  conditions.2. 

To  avoid  constitutional  difficulties,  the  statutes  should 
provide  for  jury  and  counsel  where  demanded,  and 
should  provide  for  prosecution  by  the  state's  attorney 
where  demanded.3 

Judge  Williams,  Justice  Ohmstead,  Miss  Julia 
Lathrop,  Judge  Lindsey,  and  many  other  writers  upon 
juvenile  courts  insist  upon  the  detention  home  as 
one  of  the  most  important  aids  in  the  work  of  dealing 
with  delinquent  children. 

The  statutes  should  provide  for  paid  probation  of- 
ficers having  the  power  of  sheriffs.  It  is  generally 
agreed  that  probation  officers  should  receive  public 
compensation  and  that  the  paid  probation  system  is 
more  effective  than  the  unpaid.4  The  choice  of  pro- 

1  " — not  one  who  merely  takes  his  turn  after  adult  cases."  "The  con- 
stant rotation  is  destructive  of  real  success."  The  judge  should  be  "in- 
timately acquainted  with  child  nature  and  with  various  institutions 
and  methods  that  may  he  employed  to  help  the  child." 

*  Cf.    Lindsey,  in  International  Prison  Report.  1904,  p.  64. 

3  Cf.    Lindsey,  Juvenile  Court  Law  of  Colorado,  p.  26. 

4  S.  J.  Barrows,  in  International  Prison  Report.  1904..  p.  XII.    cf.  Mrs. 
D.  Sheffield,  in  Legislation  in  Regard  to  Children,  p.  35-6. 


JUVENILE  COURTS  41 

bation  officers  should  be  left  to  the  Court,1  or  the 
Court  subject  to  the  approval  of  special  Commissions, 
Boards  of  Charities,  Probation  Commissions  etc.  Ju- 
venile Court  Commissions  are  gaining  in  favor.2 
Examinations  of  the  nature  of  civil  service  examina- 
tions for  preliminary  qualifications,  have  been  tried 
in  some  states.3 

The  principle  of  adult  ("contributory")  delinquency 
is  recognized  in  nearly  all  recent  legislation.4 

The  judge  should  be  given  power  to  suspend  sen- 
tences, that  is,  to  put  the  responsible  party  upon  pro- 
bation. 

A  feature  new  to  legislation,  though  not  to  practice, 
is  that  of  forbidding  all  newspaper  and  other  pub- 
licity to  cases  which  come  before  the  juvenile  court. 

Juvenile  court  workers  are  emphasizing  the  neces- 
sity for  wise  child  labor  laws,  compulsory  school  laws, 
and  general  provision  for  the  cooperation  of  the 
home,  the  school,  and  the  employer,  both  preliminary 
and  supplementary  to  juvenile  court  legislation.8 

1  Charities,  1905-6,  vol.  15,  p.  758. 

*  "The  most  notable  recommendation  of  this  [the  New  York  Proba- 
tion] Commission — is  that  of  unpaid  municipal  probation  commissions 
for  cities  of  the  first  and  second  class.  These  commissions  are  proposed 
to  be  under  the  supervision  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities.  .  .  ." 

Mrs.  D.  Sheffield,  in  Legislation  in  Regard  to  Children,  p.  35-36. 

3  S.  J.  Barrows,  In  International  Prison  Report,  1904,  p.  XII.    Lind- 
sey.  Juvenile  Court  Law  of  Colorado.  1905,  p.  8. 

4  "The  most  practicable  and  important  new  feature  [of  juvenile  court 
legislation]  is  the  enforcement  of  the  legal  responsibility  upon  the  par- 
ents and  the  home  for  the  moral  and  physical  welfare  of  the  child  and 
the  establishment  of  a  practical  and  effectual  system  of  probation  in 
order  to  carry  out  these  principles  generally  recognized  in  every  state." 
Llndsey,  Juvenile  Court  Law  of  Colorado,  p.  159. 

8  See  also  Lindsey,  in  International  Prison  Report,  1904,p.  122-5.  and 
Charities.  1904-5.  vol.  13,  p.  357. 

For  blank  forms  etc.,  in  use  by  juvenile  courts,  see  Juvenile  Court 
Laws  of  Colorado,  p.  05-80  and  B6renger,  op.  cit.  p.  145-227. 


